For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

FWIW, the past four years, the Cs have won the same percentage of games, around 60%, with or without Rondo.

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

FWIW, the past four years, the Cs have won the same percentage of games, around 60%, with or without Rondo.

But, they have never played an extended period of time without Rondo. This will be the first time. They have 38 games left. My guess is they go 22-16, end up in the 8th slot, and lose in the first round. Nothing to be ashamed of without the starting point guard for the NBA East all star team.

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

FWIW, the past four years, the Cs have won the same percentage of games, around 60%, with or without Rondo.

But, they have never played an extended period of time without Rondo. This will be the first time. They have 38 games left. My guess is they go 22-16, end up in the 8th slot, and lose in the first round. Nothing to be ashamed of without the starting point guard for the NBA East all star team.

I haven't looked at the strength of schedule, honestly 22-16 seems pretty optimistic.

I think the best case scenario (rally together etc) would be 19-19 or 20-18. But when you consider that even WITH Rondo this team was 3 games under .500 prior to the game against the Heat, the outlook seems less rosy.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they go 17-21 or 16-22. And that's assuming Danny doesn't even make minor cap-saving trades around the deadline since the team isn't contending anymore (e.g. shipping off Terry / Bass for expirings).

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

For those who are challenged with a calculator, the above stats show that we have a win record of 0.604 with Rondo, and a record of 0.628 without him.

Yes, not only does Rondo have a negative on/off rating, but we also have a better winning record when he's NOT playing than we do when he is.

So please, somebody give me anything at all which proves that we are a significantly worse team without Rondo. I'd love to have a reason to believe Rondo's league leading assiss and triple doubles mean something, but I just don't see it.

Well if you're judging his impact based off of his on court/off court stats, he's clearly made a difference in the past two years...

So in over 5600 minutes where Rondo was on the court versus the 2800 where he was off of it, the Celtics shot the ball at a higher percentage, were a better offensive rebounding team, assited the ball at a higher rate, turned the ball over less, and produced more points than their opponent.

It hasn't been true much this season, mostly due to his play over the last month, but it's clear that we are a better team with Rondo on the court. It seems silly to even debate this...

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

FWIW, the past four years, the Cs have won the same percentage of games, around 60%, with or without Rondo.

I think you'll find that since KG joined the team we've played almost as well without him as with him. Whatever your point about Rondo, it would seem to apply to KG as well.

Yes, not only does Rondo have a negative on/off rating, but we also have a better winning record when he's NOT playing than we do when he is.

By the way, since you're using on/off numbers to determine a player's value to the team, out of the big 4 in the playoffs over the last 4 years Rondo's on/off numbers look like they're the best 3 times and 2nd best once.

so IMO basically the c's have 3 weeks to prove to danny they can play at a high level, or else he will likely trade off some long term contracts if he can get decent value

It just seems so unlikely to me that he can get decent value mid-season.

Logged

"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

If you look at our roster we actually have a number of capable offensive players - Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Brandon Bass, Jason Terry, Leandro Barbosa, Courtney Lee, Chris Wilcox, Jeff Green. That may not be the most stacked lineup in the league, but on paper it's right up there in probably the top 5 or 10 in terms of scoring depth.

Now a great PG is supposed to make everybody around him better - think Stockton, Chris Paul, Jason Kidd. Does Rondo really do that? Lets see..

* Bass is having the worst season of his career* Terry (a great shooter of this generation) is struggling* Lee struggled at first, and has been up and down since * Jeff Green doesn't look comfortable at all on offense * Pierce is shooting the lowest percentage since 2008* KG is shooting the lowest percentage since 2008* Barbosa pretty much creates all his own offense

If Rondo is just a great pure PG, why hasn't he been able to get KG and Pierce easy shots? Why hasn't he been able to get the new guys comfortable playing in the new system?

The announcers during today's game quoted Terry saying that he's strugglng because he's still not used to where he needs to be on plays. If Rondo is so good at making teammates better, should't he be getting Terry the ball in his hot spots, where he's most comfortable?

If Rondo makes us SO much better with his assists, then why is it that this team, with a very reasoanble amount of offensive talent, is one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA?

If Rondo is so critical to this team, then why is his net on/off rating a -1.3 (according to NBA.com advanced stats)?

Why did we lost the last two games, even through Rondo recorded triple doubles in both? How come today when Pierce recorded a triple double, we won the game against the best team in the East?

I love Rondo as a player, but I'm just not convinced that he is the absolutely critical piece to this team everybody believes he is.

So aside from objective opinion, quoting of box scores and pure fanboyism, can anybody here actually produce some type of statistical correlation between Rondo playing, and us winning?

Let me help with some words quoted from an NBA.com article:

Quote

As good as Rondo has been, keep this in mind: Even with him this season, the Celtics ranked 23rd in the NBA in offensive effiency entering Sunday.

Rondo entered Sunday ranked 49th in PER among players (and 16th among guards) who have played at least 3,000 minutes in the last four seasons. He ranked tied for 54th overall this season among those with at least 500 minutes played.

The Celtics are averaging 93.8 points with Rondo on the court this season, and 90.7 points with him off the court. But they're considerably better in terms of what they allow, as noted in the chart on the right.

They’ve been able to survive his absence in the past.

The Celtics are 145-95 with Rondo over the last four seasons, but they are also 22-13 without him. He's previously missed as many as 14 games in a season.

In that span, they've been a plus-2.9 points per 48 minutes with him on the floor, but plus-4.4 points with him off the floor.

For those who are challenged with a calculator, the above stats show that we have a win record of 0.604 with Rondo, and a record of 0.628 without him.

Yes, not only does Rondo have a negative on/off rating, but we also have a better winning record when he's NOT playing than we do when he is.

So please, somebody give me anything at all which proves that we are a significantly worse team without Rondo. I'd love to have a reason to believe Rondo's league leading assiss and triple doubles mean something, but I just don't see it.

I don't think the offensive talent is anywhere near as good as you think. I think you need one of PP or Rondo to have a good team, otherwise we are terrible. We miss Ray as well because he could create his own shot. We have no one else that can create a shot other than PP. We won today because our defense tightened up. If there is ANY area we might be better sans Rondo it is D bit offensively I anticipate we will be terrible the remainder of the season. Just awful..

Yes, not only does Rondo have a negative on/off rating, but we also have a better winning record when he's NOT playing than we do when he is.

By the way, since you're using on/off numbers to determine a player's value to the team, out of the big 4 in the playoffs over the last 4 years Rondo's on/off numbers look like they're the best 3 times and 2nd best once.

Last season's playoffs both KG and AB had a better on/off rating than Rondo. It wasn't close either...

So in over 5600 minutes where Rondo was on the court versus the 2800 where he was off of it, the Celtics shot the ball at a higher percentage, were a better offensive rebounding team, assited the ball at a higher rate, turned the ball over less, and produced more points than their opponent.

It hasn't been true much this season, mostly due to his play over the last month, but it's clear that we are a better team with Rondo on the court. It seems silly to even debate this...

Hang on a second - all the numbers you are showing here are offensive numbers.

Rondo has a positive offensive impact on the team this season, we all know that. Even the numbers I quoted showed that.

Our offensive rating is +2 (which is good) when Rondo is on the court. However, our defensive rating is +4 (bad) when Rondo is on the court. So we score 2 more points, but we allow 4 more points. Net result is we are losing by 2.

Also I'm not so concerned about his on/off rating for the last two seasons, I'm concerned about this season.

To me it seems the instant Pierce declared Rondo the new leader of the team, that seems to be when things got to his head and he turned especially cocky and arrogant.

So other stats suggest that we do tend to win more when Rondo has big games. That suggests the following:

1. When Rondo plays great, we tend to win2. When Rondo plays lazy, we are better off without him

Since our overall will record is better without him, this may suggests that he plays lazy too often for his own good.

I'd love to see what our record is with/without KG and with/without Pierce since 2008. Not sure if anybody can pull those stats up, but I'm pretty confident will will have a major drop off in win percentage.

For the record Rondo runs our offense all day long and logs assists like they're going out of style and that does benefit the team. It's true that many people seem to enjoy watching the offense more when Rondo's controlling the ball less, it's equally true that our offense is usually worse during those times.

Yes he does run our offense and log assists all day, but where is the evidence to show that our team is far better when he's dong that?

Where is the evidence that shows all of Rondo's double figure assist nights and triple double nights are actually helping us win games?

In the last 2 seasons we're 8-3 when Rondo has a triple double, 52-47 when he doesn't.

Likewise, we're 40-26 on his double figure assist nights, 20-24 on all other nights.

Yet we have a better win record without him than with him?

In 07-08 we had a better record without KG than with him, in fact in KG's first 2 years on the Celts (mvp caliber player, before the knee injury) we had a better combined record without him than with him. Whatever conclusions that you're drawing from our record without Rondo about Rajon's value to the team would apply equally to KG on his first 2 years on the team. Is your claim that neither of them helped the team win games?

I don't think the offensive talent is anywhere near as good as you think. I think you need one of PP or Rondo to have a good team, otherwise we are terrible. We miss Ray as well because he could create his own shot. We have no one else that can create a shot other than PP. We won today because our defense tightened up. If there is ANY area we might be better sans Rondo it is D bit offensively I anticipate we will be terrible the remainder of the season. Just awful..

Lee, Terry and Barbosa and Pierce are all capable of creating their own shot if past history is anything to go off.

So can Green - it seems very few of Green's baskets (aside from his corner threes) have been assisted this season. He seems to score the vast majority of his points from a triple threat position, usually taking his opponent off the dribble or shooting over the top.

Sully scores a lot of his points off offensive rebounds and putbacks.

Wilcox, Bradley, Bass and KG seem to be the guys who score a lot off assists, but we have plenty of guys who have historically been quite capable (if not dominant) of creating their own shots.

Again we may not be the best offensive team in the NBA, but the level of offensive talent we have is far better than a 20th or 23rd ranked offense would suggest.

Sure I'd still love to have Rondo around rather than not, but there's really no evidence from this season which suggests we play better with him than without. Or from past seasons really. There's really nothing to indicate that we can't maintain a record as good as (or better than) our current one with him out.

We could very possibly sink like a brick in the ocean, but we don't know that for sure. The numbers suggest we still have life. I'd still rather make the playoffs (even if its a first round exit) rather than bomb out the season and rebuild. If nothing else at least Pierce and KG keep some self respect, and our young guys get some playoff experience together.

In 07-08 we had a better record without KG than with him, in fact in KG's first 2 years on the Celts (mvp caliber player, before the knee injury) we had a better combined record without him than with him. Whatever conclusions that you're drawing from our record without Rondo about Rajon's value to the team would apply equally to KG on his first 2 years on the team. Is your claim that neither of them helped the team win games?

I love how you're twisting this to tell the story you want it to tell by only quoting the first two years of stats.

How about our OVERALL record with KG vs without him since 2008?

How about our record without KG in that season when we lost him to the Knee injury? From what I recall we were playing elite basketball before he got hurt, then afterwards we struggled badly to win games. Wasn't our record not much better than .500 without KG that season?

Yes, not only does Rondo have a negative on/off rating, but we also have a better winning record when he's NOT playing than we do when he is.

By the way, since you're using on/off numbers to determine a player's value to the team, out of the big 4 in the playoffs over the last 4 years Rondo's on/off numbers look like they're the best 3 times and 2nd best once.

Last season's playoffs both KG and AB had a better on/off rating than Rondo. It wasn't close either...

In the 2011 playoffs Rondo had a better on/off than any of the big three in spite of playing about 1/3 of his minutes with a dislocated elbow. In fact, Rondo playing with 1 arm had a better on/off than any of the big three. Again, whatever you think that your on/off numbers show about KG's value compared to Rondo's will also apply to the previous year, only comparing KG (and PP and RA) negatively to a badly injured Rondo. And, again, Rondo's had a better on/off than PP or RA 4 years running and better than KG 2 out of the last 3 years in the playoffs.